![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1632 plot threads was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 1632 (novel). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
RickK: "it's fantasy, not SF, and 1781 IS a part of the universe, as Flint himself says on his website"
Oh, and I didn't recognize the title, but By Any Other Name is also not a 163x book.
-- wwoods 06:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that the first two sections need to be wikified.-- Hannu 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The lead para, especially, is rather glowing. Any phrasing like "1632 is a hugely popular, entertaining, thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat novel", in my view, either needs rewording to return to PW:NPOV or to be a quote with a cite. This tone seems to continue throughout the article, at least in spots. Comparing it to Tolkien smacks of literary criticism, a kind of original research. If there are cites for these comparisions, include them, but even then it should be worded as a cite. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
cc from Lar: Thanks for your comment, btw, talk: 1632 (novel). I'll think on your input, lean that way myself. Personally, enclopedic standard would eliminate most Pop entries in entirety, so the article would be speedy vote in WP:AFD fm me philosophically speaking. Not 'mature' enough to be noteworthy historically speaking. Unless I see some hope (and examples) that this sort of thing has chance at WP:FA, the book involves too much work to expand much farther. I feel like its waste of time. Got any answers on that concern? (FA examples) :: Fra nkB 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Reactions? Fra nkB 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Late Posted Specific Answers, Fra nkB Says:
Late Post, Fra nkB says: (Not prone to hyperbole, are we? <G>) I agree it will be much shortened, and am in basic agreement with user: Wwoods on the moves, but redundancy (as repetition) is at the heart of educational theory, and education is our WikiPurpose. SO I think we can do a bit better than shortening it to the same size. An article must needs be standalone reading as well. Properly managed, I'd guess we'll end up at least 2X to 3X with the suggested cut out and moves, while retaining some of the adds I made in part, linked to 'more on the history behind' or some such. The problem at hand is deciding on a strategy that everyone, even Anoms. with 4 edits total can live with. I made a mistake of taking the length as an indication of an neglected topic, and it had no series link I could see in the history, which means to me that it has been neglected in that there has been little put up except in the 1632 series article without any aim to make it FA quality like Starship Troopers, i.e. 13 printed pages in medium font size. I didn't start my initial edit with any intention except to add some historical background. But then text flowed out, and much later, I was reworking the intro as well. Just the lack of historical background made me amazed and a little angry. If I stepped on some toes here, I apologize as I certainly didn't mean to in any way. I just think the novel deserves a lot fairer treatment than the teaser generated heretofore. Fra nkB 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a couple of months. I changed some of the language that was not grammatical. More to the point, I removed "advertisement language" from the synopsis. There was also non-factual information in the synopsis. (Not once did the Spanish Inquisition hunt down witches in Germany.)
Rocklaura 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You can help me: Apply your editor's eye to the problems in 1632 (novel), in that: Some insensitive SOB came in and made a mountainous change to the article (that unfortunately didn't link to the series), nor w/o really reading much less perusing the history file for the article. (So he assumed the whole was woefully neglected.) This is called a major error in assumption! (I can put me foot in me mouth quite well as this demonstrates) Now he needs to split out his input into a separate article or sub-page but needs to retain a good encylopediaish article for the novel article, fixing up concurrently the other individual articles and the series article at relatively the same time. Hopefully with a lot of forgiving helpers... But doesn't want to steamroller over the other (estimated) 20 editors that had worked the series, which his assumptions inadvertently will have indubitably offended, albeit, inadvertently in typical ADD/ADHD style (of impulsive disasters). Or potentially so, I now see. (This crystallized last night at twoish, when I got back to the project, and belatedly looked at the contribs and histories for the 1632 series and 1632 Novel). Sorry to have made this gaff folks! The poor SOB is looking for ideas of what to keep and what is good for the novel, but not the series, and what is good for the series, but not the novel. And does the concept of a unified character list fly, and what format should it have. Strikes me that you'd be a good 'Resource' in this as you are fan neutral - you haven't read the first work, much less the whole corpus as has yours truly. Interested? Your real world editors experience should be of real use. If my first output proves anything, it shows my 'text is flowing' mode is not naturally encyclopediaish! Converting that will take some time. Would you be interested for something you haven't read? (This is really a nefarious plot to get you to read one of me favorite books, but I would enjoy (I hope!) a unbiased insight untarnished by understanding of the novel. What better input for deciding such an article was written properly for the WikiP!)
I have a real world commitment and will be back to finish my post in an hour or so... so hold your answers!
Much later...
Not a good idea! Fra nkB 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My view on maps is simple, a bad map that sheds some light on the matter is better than none, which leaves no clues for people to use to start their own researches with. The two I put in here are period correct, in that thuringia is shown within the present German state in the proper relation to other federal states, and the 1512 Map shows the major political players (the seven princes) in the fractured map that Germany was a the time. This Map shows the state of fragmentation much better, were it not poor quality, and copywrited to boot. I have also coresponded with the professor for whom this is part of an online sylabus, and gotten source information. In due course, better maps may be found, but for the time being, these need to be tolerated, if only as place holders until replaced with something better. Fra nkB 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Added as the tone of much of the text is too close to advertising. Major change of tone required to make this encyclopedic in style. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the entry states that in 1631 a United States of Europe (USE) is formed from cities neighboring Grantville. This is not entirely accurate. Mike Stearns and company do form a small nation from the local towns, but it is simply called the United States.
The United States of Europe isn't formed until the autumn of 1633 after the Battle of Wismar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.117.59 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Text speaks of Weimar, Jena, Saalfeld, Erfurt, Arnstadt and Eisenach being located in the valley of Saale River. This is not true, except for Jena and Saalfeld (as the name implies). Erfurt and Arnstadt lie at Gera River, Weimar at Ilm River and Eisenach at Werra River. So I propose to delete this phrase. All towns are mentioned to lie in Thuringia and this is the smallest region for which that holds true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.176.80 ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a linked page for the 1632 series as a whole, I think the The "About the Series" section needs to be drastically shortened. I'm tempted to just go do it, since there are no 2008 comments on this page, and it looks like all of the previous wranglers have gone away. Sherrold ( talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I never edited the plot threads article so I didn't know about the deletion discussion nor the merge decision. This 1632(novel) article is not the place for the series plot threads, because only one thread was touched upon in this particular novel. The series plot threads belong in ... the 1632 series article (since the plot thread article was deleted). Some of them are already mentioned under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series#Published_books , but not in in the same way - it divides them out by books. And the 1632 series article is gonna get NASTY long if we kill every other 1632 article and fold it into that one. :(
I don't want to just jump in here and delete the info - but it genuinely doesn't apply to this individual novel. Tkech ( talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps deleted altogether? On what basis does this stuff deserve an encyclopaedia article at all?? 86.150.255.77 ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No sources, possible POV or original research. Add sources or it should be deleted/replaced. WesPhil ( talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1632 plot threads was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 1632 (novel). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
RickK: "it's fantasy, not SF, and 1781 IS a part of the universe, as Flint himself says on his website"
Oh, and I didn't recognize the title, but By Any Other Name is also not a 163x book.
-- wwoods 06:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that the first two sections need to be wikified.-- Hannu 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The lead para, especially, is rather glowing. Any phrasing like "1632 is a hugely popular, entertaining, thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat novel", in my view, either needs rewording to return to PW:NPOV or to be a quote with a cite. This tone seems to continue throughout the article, at least in spots. Comparing it to Tolkien smacks of literary criticism, a kind of original research. If there are cites for these comparisions, include them, but even then it should be worded as a cite. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
cc from Lar: Thanks for your comment, btw, talk: 1632 (novel). I'll think on your input, lean that way myself. Personally, enclopedic standard would eliminate most Pop entries in entirety, so the article would be speedy vote in WP:AFD fm me philosophically speaking. Not 'mature' enough to be noteworthy historically speaking. Unless I see some hope (and examples) that this sort of thing has chance at WP:FA, the book involves too much work to expand much farther. I feel like its waste of time. Got any answers on that concern? (FA examples) :: Fra nkB 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Reactions? Fra nkB 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Late Posted Specific Answers, Fra nkB Says:
Late Post, Fra nkB says: (Not prone to hyperbole, are we? <G>) I agree it will be much shortened, and am in basic agreement with user: Wwoods on the moves, but redundancy (as repetition) is at the heart of educational theory, and education is our WikiPurpose. SO I think we can do a bit better than shortening it to the same size. An article must needs be standalone reading as well. Properly managed, I'd guess we'll end up at least 2X to 3X with the suggested cut out and moves, while retaining some of the adds I made in part, linked to 'more on the history behind' or some such. The problem at hand is deciding on a strategy that everyone, even Anoms. with 4 edits total can live with. I made a mistake of taking the length as an indication of an neglected topic, and it had no series link I could see in the history, which means to me that it has been neglected in that there has been little put up except in the 1632 series article without any aim to make it FA quality like Starship Troopers, i.e. 13 printed pages in medium font size. I didn't start my initial edit with any intention except to add some historical background. But then text flowed out, and much later, I was reworking the intro as well. Just the lack of historical background made me amazed and a little angry. If I stepped on some toes here, I apologize as I certainly didn't mean to in any way. I just think the novel deserves a lot fairer treatment than the teaser generated heretofore. Fra nkB 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a couple of months. I changed some of the language that was not grammatical. More to the point, I removed "advertisement language" from the synopsis. There was also non-factual information in the synopsis. (Not once did the Spanish Inquisition hunt down witches in Germany.)
Rocklaura 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You can help me: Apply your editor's eye to the problems in 1632 (novel), in that: Some insensitive SOB came in and made a mountainous change to the article (that unfortunately didn't link to the series), nor w/o really reading much less perusing the history file for the article. (So he assumed the whole was woefully neglected.) This is called a major error in assumption! (I can put me foot in me mouth quite well as this demonstrates) Now he needs to split out his input into a separate article or sub-page but needs to retain a good encylopediaish article for the novel article, fixing up concurrently the other individual articles and the series article at relatively the same time. Hopefully with a lot of forgiving helpers... But doesn't want to steamroller over the other (estimated) 20 editors that had worked the series, which his assumptions inadvertently will have indubitably offended, albeit, inadvertently in typical ADD/ADHD style (of impulsive disasters). Or potentially so, I now see. (This crystallized last night at twoish, when I got back to the project, and belatedly looked at the contribs and histories for the 1632 series and 1632 Novel). Sorry to have made this gaff folks! The poor SOB is looking for ideas of what to keep and what is good for the novel, but not the series, and what is good for the series, but not the novel. And does the concept of a unified character list fly, and what format should it have. Strikes me that you'd be a good 'Resource' in this as you are fan neutral - you haven't read the first work, much less the whole corpus as has yours truly. Interested? Your real world editors experience should be of real use. If my first output proves anything, it shows my 'text is flowing' mode is not naturally encyclopediaish! Converting that will take some time. Would you be interested for something you haven't read? (This is really a nefarious plot to get you to read one of me favorite books, but I would enjoy (I hope!) a unbiased insight untarnished by understanding of the novel. What better input for deciding such an article was written properly for the WikiP!)
I have a real world commitment and will be back to finish my post in an hour or so... so hold your answers!
Much later...
Not a good idea! Fra nkB 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My view on maps is simple, a bad map that sheds some light on the matter is better than none, which leaves no clues for people to use to start their own researches with. The two I put in here are period correct, in that thuringia is shown within the present German state in the proper relation to other federal states, and the 1512 Map shows the major political players (the seven princes) in the fractured map that Germany was a the time. This Map shows the state of fragmentation much better, were it not poor quality, and copywrited to boot. I have also coresponded with the professor for whom this is part of an online sylabus, and gotten source information. In due course, better maps may be found, but for the time being, these need to be tolerated, if only as place holders until replaced with something better. Fra nkB 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Added as the tone of much of the text is too close to advertising. Major change of tone required to make this encyclopedic in style. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the entry states that in 1631 a United States of Europe (USE) is formed from cities neighboring Grantville. This is not entirely accurate. Mike Stearns and company do form a small nation from the local towns, but it is simply called the United States.
The United States of Europe isn't formed until the autumn of 1633 after the Battle of Wismar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.117.59 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Text speaks of Weimar, Jena, Saalfeld, Erfurt, Arnstadt and Eisenach being located in the valley of Saale River. This is not true, except for Jena and Saalfeld (as the name implies). Erfurt and Arnstadt lie at Gera River, Weimar at Ilm River and Eisenach at Werra River. So I propose to delete this phrase. All towns are mentioned to lie in Thuringia and this is the smallest region for which that holds true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.176.80 ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a linked page for the 1632 series as a whole, I think the The "About the Series" section needs to be drastically shortened. I'm tempted to just go do it, since there are no 2008 comments on this page, and it looks like all of the previous wranglers have gone away. Sherrold ( talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I never edited the plot threads article so I didn't know about the deletion discussion nor the merge decision. This 1632(novel) article is not the place for the series plot threads, because only one thread was touched upon in this particular novel. The series plot threads belong in ... the 1632 series article (since the plot thread article was deleted). Some of them are already mentioned under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series#Published_books , but not in in the same way - it divides them out by books. And the 1632 series article is gonna get NASTY long if we kill every other 1632 article and fold it into that one. :(
I don't want to just jump in here and delete the info - but it genuinely doesn't apply to this individual novel. Tkech ( talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps deleted altogether? On what basis does this stuff deserve an encyclopaedia article at all?? 86.150.255.77 ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No sources, possible POV or original research. Add sources or it should be deleted/replaced. WesPhil ( talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)